The impact of surgical approach on short- and long-term outcomes after rectal cancer resection in elderly patients: a national cancer database propensity score matched comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches.

BACKGROUND: Elderly patients are underrepresented in studies demonstrating the advantages of laparoscopy for the management of colorectal diseases. Moreover, few studies have examined the robotic approach in this population. In this retrospective analysis, we compare outcomes for open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches in elderly patients with nonmetastatic rectal cancer. METHODS: The U.S. National Cancer Database was queried for patients aged ≥ 65 with nonmetastatic adenocarcinoma of the rectum who underwent surgical resection from 2010 to 2016. Groups were separated based on approach (open, laparoscopic, robotic). One-to-one nearest neighbor propensity score matching (PSM) ± 1% caliper was performed across surgical approach cohorts to balance potential confounding covariates. Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox-proportional hazards regression were used to analyze the primary outcome of survival. Secondary outcomes were analyzed by way of logistic regression. RESULTS: Inclusion criteria and PSM identified 1891 patients per approach (n = 5673). PSM provided adequate discrimination between cohorts (0.6 < AUC < 0.8), and potential confounding covariates did not significantly differ (respective P > 0.05). After PSM, robotic and laparoscopic approaches were associated with decreased odds of 90 day mortality compared to the open approach (P < 0.05). Compared to laparoscopy, a robotic approach was associated with increased odds of ≥ 12 regional lymph nodes examined and negative circumferential resection margin (P < 0.05). No differences were seen in 30 day or 90 day mortality between robotic and laparoscopic approaches. Cox proportional hazards regression showed that both robotic and laparoscopic approaches were significantly associated with decreased mortality hazards relative to open. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that in elderly patients, minimally invasive surgery for rectal adenocarcinoma was associated with equivalent or improved short- and long-term mortality over open surgery. Compared to laparoscopy, the robotic approach showed no survival disadvantage and greater odds of an appropriate oncological resection. Our study adds evidence to the conclusion that robotic rectal surgery can be safely performed in patients regardless of age.

Robotic-assisted surgery for complicated and uncomplicated diverticulitis: A single-surgeon case-series comparison.

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted techniques in colorectal surgery have dramatically increased. Comparative data on the management of uncomplicated and complicated diverticulitis using robotics is lacking. The purpose of this study is to examine outcomes of patients who underwent robotic-assisted resection in diverticulitis. METHODS: A prospectively maintained database performed by a single surgeon was retrospectively reviewed to identify patients who underwent robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) for diverticulitis from October 2009 to November 2018. Demographic data, preoperative and intraoperative parameters and postoperative outcomes were assessed using χ2 or Fisher exact test with p values <0.05 considered significant. IRB approval was obtained for this study, #NCR190935. RESULTS: Comparison revealed significant differences in operative times (222 vs. 291 min, p < 0.00001), mean estimated blood loss (130 vs. 304 cc, p = 0.0003) and mean length of stay (3.9 vs. 5.0 days, p = 0.006). Low rates of postoperative complications were observed, with no significant differences noted for conversion to laparoscopy, surgical site infection, leak, intra-abdominal abscess, 30-day unplanned readmission or recurrence. CONCLUSION: Patients with complicated diverticulitis required longer operative time, had increased estimated blood loss and more often converted to an open procedure; however, overall rates of post-operative complications were low in both groups. RAS shows promise for use in complicated diverticulitis.

The robotic colorectal experience: an outcomes and learning curve analysis of 502 patients.

AIM: This study aimed to present our experience with robotic colorectal surgery since its establishment at our institution in 2009. By examining the outcomes of over 500 patients, our experience provides a basis for assessing the introduction of a robotic platform in a colorectal practice. Specific measures investigated include intraoperative data and postoperative outcomes for all operations using the robotic platform. In addition, for our most commonly performed operations we wished to analyse the learning curve to improve operative proficiency. This is the largest single-surgeon robotic database analysed to date. METHOD: A prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent robotic colorectal surgery by a single surgeon at the George Washington University Hospital was retrospectively reviewed. Demographic data and perioperative outcomes were assessed. Additionally, an operating time learning curve analysis was performed. RESULTS: Inclusion criteria identified 502 patients who underwent robotic colorectal surgery between October 2009 and December 2018. The most common indications for surgery were diverticulitis (22.9%), colon adenocarcinoma (22.1%) and rectal adenocarcinoma (19.5%). The most common operations were anterior/low anterior resection (33.9%), right hemicolectomy/ileocaecectomy (24.9%) and left hemicolectomy/sigmoidectomy (21.9%). The rate of conversion to open surgery was 4.8%. The most common postoperative complications were wound infection (5.0%), anastomotic leakage (4.0%) and abscess formation (2.8%). The operating time learning curve plateaued at 55-65 cases for anterior and low anterior resection and 35-45 cases for left hemicolectomy and sigmoidectomy. A clear learning curve was not seen in right hemicolectomy. CONCLUSION: Robotic-assisted surgery can be performed in a diverse colorectal practice with low rates of conversion and postoperative complications. Plateau performance was achieved after 65 anterior/low anterior resections and 45 left and sigmoid colectomies.

Trends in utilization, conversion rates, and outcomes for minimally invasive approaches to non-metastatic rectal cancer: a national cancer database analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study examined utilization and conversion rates for robotic and laparoscopic approaches to non-metastatic rectal cancer. Secondary aims were to examine short- and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent conversion to laparotomy from each approach. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was reviewed for all cases of non-metastatic adenocarcinoma of the rectum or rectosigmoid junction who underwent surgical resection from 2010 to 2016. Utilization rates of robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches were examined. Patients were split into cohorts by approach. Subgroup analyses were performed by primary tumor site and surgical procedure. Multivariable analysis was performed by multivariable logistic regression for binary outcomes and multivariable general linear models for continuous outcomes. Survival analysis was performed by Kaplan-Meier and multivariable cox-proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2016, there was a statistically significant increase in utilization of the robotic and laparoscopic approaches over the study period and a statistically significant decrease in utilization of the open approach. The conversion rates for robotic and laparoscopic cohorts were 7.0% and 15.7%, p < 0.0001. Subgroup analysis revealed statistically lower conversion rates between robotic and laparoscopic approaches for rectosigmoid and rectal tumors and for LAR and APR. Converted cohorts had statistically significant higher odds of short term mortality than the non-converted cohorts (p < 0.05).Laparoscopic conversion had statistically higher odds of positive margins (p < 0.0001) and 30-day unplanned readmission (p < 0.0001) than the laparoscopic non-conversion. Increased adjusted mortality hazard was seen for converted laparoscopy relative to non-converted laparoscopy (p = 0.0019). CONCLUSION: From 2010 to 2016, there was a significant increase in utilization of minimally invasive approaches to surgical management of non-metastatic rectal cancer. A robotic approach demonstrated decreased conversion rates than a laparoscopic approach at the rectosigmoid junction and rectum and for LAR and APR. Improved outcomes were seen in the minimally invasive cohorts compared to those that converted to laparotomy.

Surgical resection of T4 colon cancers: an NCDB propensity score-matched analysis of open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches.

Historically, T4 tumors of the colon have been a contraindication to minimally invasive resection. The purpose of this study was to conduct a National Cancer Database analysis to compare the outcomes after curative treatment for T4 colon cancer between robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches. The US National Cancer Database was queried for patients with T4 adenocarcinoma of the colon who underwent curative resection. Groups were separated based on approach (open, laparoscopic, robotic). One to one nearest neighbor propensity score matching (PSM) ± 1% caliper was performed across surgical approach cohorts to balance potential confounding covariates. Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox-proportional hazards regression were used to analyze primary outcome of survival. Secondary outcomes were analyzed by way of logistic regression. Inclusion criteria and PSM identified 876 cases per treatment approach (n = 2628). PSM provided adequate discrimination between treatment cohorts (0.6 < AUC < 0.8) and potential confounding covariates did not significantly differ between cohorts (all respective P > 0.05). Patients who underwent a robotic approach had lower odds of conversion to laparotomy compared to the laparoscopic cohort (P < 0.0001). Laparoscopic and robotic approaches were associated with increased odds of > 12 lymph nodes examined, decreased odds of positive margins, and decreased odds of 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, and 90-day mortality compared to the open approach. Cox-proportional hazards regression showed that both robotic and laparoscopic approaches were significantly associated with decreased mortality hazards relative to open. Both laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgeries achieved improved oncologic outcomes and survival compared to open resection of T4 cancers. A robotic-assisted approach was significantly associated with a lower conversion rate compared to the laparoscopic approach. This case-matched study demonstrates safety of using minimally invasive techniques in T4 cancers.

The Impact of Conversion to Laparotomy in Rectal Cancer : A National Cancer Database Analysis of 57 574 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Data regarding the effect of conversion from minimally invasive surgery (MIS) to laparotomy in rectal cancer is limited. This study examines the impact of conversion from laparoscopic or robotic-assisted techniques to open resection on oncologic outcomes in a large population database. METHODS: The National Cancer Database from 2010 to 2016 was reviewed for all cases of invasive adenocarcinoma of the rectum or rectosigmoid junction managed surgically. Patients were divided into 3 cohorts by approach: laparoscopic/robotic (MIS), converted proctectomy (CP), and open proctectomy (OP). Kaplan-Meier estimation was used for unadjusted survival analysis, followed by adjusted multivariable Cox-Proportional Hazards regression. Secondary outcomes were analyzed by multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: The inclusion criteria identified 57 574 patients cases of adenocarcinoma of the rectum managed surgically. Of these patients, 23 579 (41.0%) underwent MIS, 3591 (6.2%) CP, and 30 404 (52.8%) OP. Five-year overall survival was greater in the MIS (70.4%) versus CP and OP (64.4% and 61.4%). No differences were detected for positive margins, 30-day, or 90-day mortality between CP and OP. MIS and CP approaches were significantly associated with increased odds of 12 or more regional lymph nodes examined and decreased overall mortality hazard compared with OP (all respective significant P < .05). DISCUSSION: While similar odds of positive margins and short-term mortality is seen in patients whose procedure converts to laparotomy compared with planned laparotomy, both short-term and long-term oncologic benefit is seen in those who undergo a minimally invasive approach. Thus, a minimally invasive approach should be attempted for patients with rectal cancer.

The outcomes of two robotic platforms performing transanal minimally invasive surgery for rectal neoplasia: a case series of 21 patients.

Colorectal cancer remains the third most common cancer effecting adults. Surgical guidelines recommend transanal excision of early rectal neoplasia up to 8 cm from the anal verge. A retrospective review of two novel approaches for transanal robotic local excision with R0 resections of rectal cancers which was, on average, higher than 8 cm. Twenty-one cases of robotic assisted transanal surgery for early stage disease (T0-T1, N0) were reviewed. The first 10 cases performed with the da Vinci® Si robotic platform between 2013 and 2016, and the first 11 cases performed using the Flex® Medrobotics platform between August 2017 and August 2018. The average distance from the anal verge was 11.1 cm and 9.5 cm for the da Vinci® Si and Flex® Colorectal Drive, respectively. The average operative time was 167.6 min for the da Vinci® Si and 110.1 min for the Flex® Colorectal Drive; the average EBL was 37.5 cc and 9.1 cc for the da Vinci® Si and Flex® Colorectal Drive. In the da Vinci® series, four cases required intraoperative conversion. In the Flex® series, one case was aborted due to unfavorable robotic positioning. All margins were histologically negative when surgically complete with no recurrences to date. Transanal robotic surgery may provide a method to address rectal lesions farther from the anal verge than previously described. The Flex® Colorectal Drive platform may provide superior ability to navigate the nonlinear anatomy of the rectum and distal sigmoid colon.

Liposomal bupivacaine versus bupivacaine/epinephrine after video-assisted thoracoscopic wedge resection†.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this research is to compare liposomal bupivacaine and bupivacaine/epinephrine for intercostal blocks related to analgesic use and length of stay following video-assisted thoracoscopic wedge resection. METHODS: A retrospective study of patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic wedge resection from 2010 to 2015 was performed. We selected patients who stayed longer than 24 h in hospital. Primary outcomes were length of stay and postoperative analgesic use at 12-h intervals from 24 to 72 h. RESULTS: Intercostal blocks were performed with liposomal bupivacaine in 62 patients and bupivacaine/epinephrine in 51 patients. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test evaluated differences in median postoperative analgesic use and length of stay. Those who received liposomal bupivacaine consumed fewer analgesics than those who received bupivacaine/epinephrine, with a statistically significant difference from 24 to 36 h (20.25 vs 45.0 mg; P = 0.0059) and from 60 to 72 h postoperatively (15.0 vs 33.75 mg; P = 0.0350). In patients who stayed longer than 72 h, the median cumulative analgesic consumption in those who received liposomal bupivacaine was statistically significantly lower than those who received bupivacaine/epinephrine (120.0 vs 296.5 mg; P = 0.0414). Median length of stay for the liposomal bupivacaine and bupivacaine/epinephrine groups were 45:05 h and 44:29 h, respectively. There were no adverse events related to blocks performed with liposomal bupivacaine. CONCLUSIONS: Thoracic surgery patients who have blocks performed with liposomal bupivacaine require fewer analgesics postoperatively. This may decrease complications related to poor pain control and decrease side effects related to narcotic use in our patient population.

Minimally invasive thoracoabdominal esophagectomy in a morbidly obese patient.

Open approaches to esophagectomy include transhiatial, Ivor-Lewis, left thoracoabdominal, and McKeown, each with inherent advantages and disadvantages. Minimally invasive esophagectomy most commonly refers to a minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis style approach, although transhiatial and McKeown approaches have also been described. A minimally invasive thoracoabdominal esophagectomy has not yet been reported. This minimally invasive approach offers the same advantages as the open thoracoabdominal procedure: excellent exposure, evaluation for resectability before gastric mobilization, and no need for intraoperative repositioning. We describe a minimally invasive thoracoabdominal esophagectomy, the technique, and advantages of this approach in a morbidly obese patient with esophageal cancer.